Polite Dissent

In the June 2004 issue of Wizard (#152), there is a Question and Answer session with Editor-In-Chief of Marvel Comics, Joe Quesada. After he’s done with comics, Quesada should move to politics. He would be a great politician; what he says is always interesting, and he usually manages to say something stupid at least once.

As I read the article, there were a couple of times where his responses to questions caught my attention. First, when asked who was more important to Marvel, Mark Millar of Brian Michael Bendis:

You’ re asking me to split the baby in half in a very Solomoesque way at which point I’d have to say, it is Mark Bendis.

Quesada has his biblical metaphors confused here. Solomon was presented with a dilemma in which two women both claimed to be the mother of an infant. Solomon had to give the baby to the right woman. In this situation, there was a definite right answer and a definite wrong answer – the trick was in figuring out which was which.

Quesada, on the other hand, is saying that he cannot choose between Millar and Bendis – that is there is no right answer. This is a very different situation than that of Solomon. His answer – though wishy-washy – is fine, stating that he really cannot pick one over the other. But I don’t think that “Solomonesque” is even a word.

After his biblical wisdom, Quesada goes on to discuss not only Millar and Bendis, but also Joe Straczynski, and Neil Gaiman:

These guys [Millar, Bendis, Straczynski] and Neil Gaiman with 1602, are creators that have brought in so much revenue or have created new franchises that never existed before, like 1602 and Supreme Power.

Later, in the same paragraph:

We value all our creators, but there are guys who are just full on revenue-makers. Also important to us are up-and-coming money-makers like Brian Vaughan.

I understand that a comic book publisher is a company and needs to make money. But it is disheartening to hear the Editor-in-Chief, a creator himself, talking about his headlining staff solely in terms of revenue production. Never once does he mention talent, creativity, or ability.

This is the kind of thinking that can only hurt the industry. At this point, anybody could write the X-Men and make money. But a bad writer will eventually drive the fans away, even from a well-known franchise. On the other hand, a talented creator will bring fans to a book. How many people read Gaiman’s Sandman in the beginning? How many by the end? Quesada needs to focus not only on revenue, but talent as well. He needs to let the creators know, and the fans know, that money is not the only issue.

As an aside, the Squadron Supreme is not a new franchise, and has existed for a long time. I first ran across them in an old issue of Defenders, and they were around before that.

When asked about Chuck Austen, “one of the most criticized writers in comics,” Quesada responds:

His books still sell…Look, if I ran my business through what the message boards and the Internet wanted, I would have been out of business. A perfect example is the ‘Net’s reaction to Ultimate Spider-Man. It was horrifically negative…If I would’ve followed the ‘Net, I’d be out of a job.

In defense of Chuck Austen, Quesada says that his books make money. As I said above, anyone could make money on the X-Men. The trick is bringing new readers to the book and keeping them. This is where “revenue-generation” isn’t enough.

In terms of not listening the buzz on the Internet, he brings up how the ‘Net was wrong about Ultimate Spider-Man. While this may be true (I honestly don’t know), it’s a bit disingenuous. Quesada is like a “psychic” here; remembering only the hits, conveniently forgetting the misses. The ‘Net may have been wrong about Ultimate Spider-Man, but it’s right more often then it’s wrong – Marville, and X-Men: Phoenix ring a bell?

In fairness, Quesada is the EIC, and he’s being paid well for his knowledge and expertise. The decisions are his to make, but he would be wise to listen to all his sources of information.

When questioned about recent continuity lapses, Quesada states that continuity was much easier in Stan Lee’s time, when Marvel wasn’t putting out so many titles. He goes on to state that he doesn’t believe that continuity is that important, and ends with:

For me, that’s the key; is a continuity glitch going to keep a writer from writing an incredible story? If it is, then to hell with the continuity – just go and write the great story; we’ll fix the rest later.

Quesada presents continuity as if it were an either-or situation: either tell a good story or follow continuity. But it’s not an either-or choice. It is possible to tell a great story within continuity. It may take a little more effort, but that’s all. Take a little more time and make sure the continuity is correct. It’s not like Marvel is known for putting comics out on time (the Ultimates, NYX…). Just utilize the Assistant Editors.

Continuity cannot be “fixed later”, just ask DC Comics, home of the Crisis on Infinite Earths and Zero Hour.

Overall, I do think that Quesada is doing a good job as Editor-in-Chief. He has certainly revitalized Marvel Comics. I just think that he needs to avoid developing “revenue” tunnel vision and push the creativity and talent.